Computational pathology: an evolving concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initial enthusiasm about computational pathology (CP) and artificial intelligence (AI) was that they will replace pathologists entirely on the way to fully automated diagnostics. It is becoming clear that currently this is not the immediate model to pursue. On top of the legal and regulatory complexities surrounding its implementation, the majority of tested machine learning (ML)-based predictive algorithms do not display the exquisite performance needed to render them unequivocal, standalone decision makers for matters with direct implications to human health. We are thus moving into a different model of "computer-assisted diagnostics", where AI is there to provide support, rather than replacing, the pathologist. Herein we focus on the practical aspects of CP, from a pathologist perspective. There is a wide range of potential applications where CP can enhance precision of pathology diagnosis, tailor prognostic and predictive information, as well as save time. There are, however, a number of potential limitations for CP that currently hinder their wider adoption in the clinical setting. We address the key necessary steps towards clinical implementation of computational pathology, discuss the significant obstacles that hinders its adoption in the clinical context and summarize some proposed solutions. We conclude that the advancement of CP in the clinic is a promising resource-intensive endeavour that requires broad and inclusive collaborations between academia, industry, and regulatory bodies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".